Manjaro 20.2 Brings Arch-Based Linux 5.9 Experience, GNOME Version Defaults To Wayland

[polarathene]

Once a person gets to a certain point on Manjaro they have to ask themselves if they've outgrown Manjaro and if they're ready to take off the training wheels and move on to Arch; when they transition from user to Power User.

I'm in that position, Manjaro since late 2016 and I have had my fair share of issues with AUR compatibility over the years as well. I've often used the Arch Wiki and configured things that I don't think I need Manjaro anymore, but I still like the generally hassle free installer vs the manual approach.

On the fence if I should give AcroLinux, EndeavourOS or similar a try as I plan to do a new install soon. Also considering OpenSUSE or Fedora but those both have some concerns (as tempting as their default BTRFS setup might be), one being SELinux/AppArmour I think, and the other AUR (I haven't checked lately, but recall less popular packages not being as widely available on either Fedora or OpenSUSE). I think I'll probably stick with Arch related distros for now.

[kylew77]

Manjaro is why I use FreeBSD now. The AUR really wasn't meant to be used on Manjaro, it was built for Arch so the more AUR packages you use you eventually wind up with a broken system that is unfixable via pacman. With FreeBSD I get a nice solid core and package updates every quarter and FDE is as easy as a checkbox in the ZFS install.

[Ironmask]

Manjaro is why I use FreeBSD now. The AUR really wasn't meant to be used on Manjaro, it was built for Arch so the more AUR packages you use you eventually wind up with a broken system that is unfixable via pacman. With FreeBSD I get a nice solid core and package updates every quarter and FDE is as easy as a checkbox in the ZFS install.

I'm glad you're happy on FreeBSD, but, did you have to abandon Linux itself because you used a broken distro based off another distro? Why didn't you just use Arch proper or any of it's forks?

[Paradigm Shifter]

I like Manjaro generally, but its kind of a gateway drug to Arch. The package freezing can be something of a mixed blessing; it's saved me headaches in the past, but it does bring its own joys (as others have said, issues with AUR at times...)

[Mez']

About their only downside and my biggest criticism is when a user starts getting into the AUR and building their own packages. Sometimes, due to how Manjaro package freezes, AUR packages won't be compatible with Manjaro due to Manjaro to not being as up-to-date as Arch. I've had random hiccups with GCC, MinGW, Mesa, and a few others over the past few years on Manjaro. At this point I think Manjaro should consider hosting their own MUR with PKGBUILDs that expect their tools, helpers, package versions, etc.

My other criticisms of Manjaro would be their green themes and MHWD. Theming is like art, all in the eye of the beholder. Since it can be changed, it's just annoying to me and nothing to really complain about aside from these comments. MHDW can get in the way of a power-user. Since it's a noob helper, that's kind of what it is supposed to do which leads me to -- Once a person gets to a certain point on Manjaro they have to ask themselves if they've outgrown Manjaro and if they're ready to take off the training wheels and move on to Arch; when they transition from user to Power User.

That last one is an odd criticism, but it's one I have none-the-less. I wouldn't have it if there was a, and talk about a Catch-22 here, helper to remove their helpers and give us more control over the system -- a way to basically turn it into Arch with the Manjaro repos.

As you said, theming can be changed so easily that I won't even get into it. Anything that is not a boring blue for selection is a win in my book though. I'm so sick of themes with blue selection (for system, nautilus, Firefox, etc...) that I could throw up just by discovering the theme. And I love blue. That's how boring these themes are.

Regarding MHWD, I'm not sure it's that intrusive anymore. I tested Manjaro 3 years ago and that's how I know what it is, because I had to tinker in some mhwd.conf for display and such.
But I've been using it again on my laptop exclusively for 5 months now (I only booted 3x), and I haven't seen it once and actually forgot about it until you mentioned it.

Anyway, I see a lot of complaints about Manjaro package freeze and AUR leading to brocken packages. I'm not sure I understand what it is all about. I'm crossing my finger this won't happen to me. It hasn't yet although I'm using both pacman and yay (for AUR access). I'm just slghtly melancholic because yaourt at the time was just a cooler name.

Overall, I'm really happy with Manjaro. I mean, once you get used to pacman/pamac/yay and some differences in path or systemd services start/stop, I barely see any difference with Ubuntu.

I wonder what added value could Arch bring me over Manjaro? Added value that would overcome the hassle of setting Arch up.


On a different note, it's sad Michael didn't cover the release of Budgie 10.5.2. It's pretty good news given how they listen to feedback from their user and build on it, contrary to Gnome. I believe the many users disappointed by Gnome could benefit from such news.

[skeevy420]

As you said, theming can be changed so easily that I won't even get into it. Anything that is not a boring blue for selection is a win in my book though. I'm so sick of themes with blue selection (for system, nautilus, Firefox, etc...) that I could throw up just by discovering the theme. And I love blue. That's how boring these themes are.

Regarding MHWD, I'm not sure it's that intrusive anymore. I tested Manjaro 3 years ago and that's how I know what it is, because I had to tinker in some mhwd.conf for display and such.
But I've been using it again on my laptop exclusively for 5 months now (I only booted 3x), and I haven't seen it once and actually forgot about it until you mentioned it.

Anyway, I see a lot of complaints about Manjaro package freeze and AUR leading to brocken packages. I'm not sure I understand what it is all about. I'm crossing my finger this won't happen to me. It hasn't yet although I'm using both pacman and yay (for AUR access). I'm just slghtly melancholic because yaourt at the time was just a cooler name.

Overall, I'm really happy with Manjaro. I mean, once you get used to pacman/pamac/yay and some differences in path or systemd services start/stop, I barely see any difference with Ubuntu.

I wonder what added value could Arch bring me over Manjaro? Added value that would overcome the hassle of setting Arch up.


On a different note, it's sad Michael didn't cover the release of Budgie 10.5.2. It's pretty good news given how they listen to feedback from their user and build on it, contrary to Gnome. I believe the many users disappointed by Gnome could benefit from such news.

For me, MHWD is mainly an issue when I'm using custom kernels. If I stick to vanilla Manjaro it isn't an issue. It's really only an issue for extreme power users that should be on Arch.

For me, the added value that Arch Proper brings is you have fine-tuned control over the file system before install. For a good ZFS on Root setup you have to roll your own. A lot of distros throw everything onto a single pool when, IMHO, you need at least 2 or 3 sub-volumes. 1 for package manager read/write only.../bin, /lib, /usr; another for system read-write.../var, /etc, non-ram /tmp; and another for users.../home, /opt. From there you also want specialized pools for swap, torrents, VMs, DBs, and other things that write to the disk in a...I dunno..a "non-standard" way.

While I'm using ZFS in my example, that's true of any file system that offers advanced features. You're able to create Ext4 volumes with case sensitivity, enable compression on various file systems before writing an OS to it, setup BTRFS Snapper configs, and more. While there are more things than that, they can all be changed post-install. File systems you have to get right the first time because you don't necessarily get a do-over or you can corrupt your data if you something wrong.

You shouldn't need yay installed. Pamac handles AUR packages. That said, I don't trust a GUI program to automagically compile my packages...so yay on. As far as AUR Helpers go, I have to recommend AURUTILS. That's the only one that actually builds AUR packages "the Arch Way"...in a clean chroot...While it isn't as simple to use as the rest, the way it makes packages and adds them to a custom repo for pacman to manage is great; especially if you employ backup/restore strategies, like Snapper or zectl, tied into pacman hooks. Basic update method is pacman (for system/aur depends); aurutils; pacman again (for AURUTILS packages).

Anyhoo, almost all of my AUR+Manjaro freeze issues were GCC or LLVM related. What happens is Arch updates their repos and in the process GCC or something essential like that will go up a major version, AUR PKGBUILDs that depend on those essentials get updated for the new major versions that Arch now has, and Manjaro AUR users get build issues until the next major Manjaro update where those essentials are updated. If you're not a heavy AUR user or only use one or two things that aren't updated a lot you might never notice. If you're building Mesa or Wine from git master every couple of days, you will notice.

Frankly, aside from package management, I don't see much of a difference between any of the major Linux distributions these days. It's almost always the same GNOME or KDE desktop with minor tweaks here or there and a theme with a systemd backend. Nothing that can't be replicated anywhere else. At least SUSE offers Snapper and Ubuntu offers Zsys...or built-in backup and restore. I wish more distributions offered a backup/restore strategy because that can be a real pain in the ass to get going. But using a system like an end-user, just clicking shit and doing stuff, they're all basically the same.

I can see myself coming around to Budgie. The only problem is I compare everything to KDE and everything else is always lacking in customizations. As Budgie matures and gets more features, I dunno, I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

[skeevy420]

I'm in that position, Manjaro since late 2016 and I have had my fair share of issues with AUR compatibility over the years as well. I've often used the Arch Wiki and configured things that I don't think I need Manjaro anymore, but I still like the generally hassle free installer vs the manual approach.

On the fence if I should give AcroLinux, EndeavourOS or similar a try as I plan to do a new install soon. Also considering OpenSUSE or Fedora but those both have some concerns (as tempting as their default BTRFS setup might be), one being SELinux/AppArmour I think, and the other AUR (I haven't checked lately, but recall less popular packages not being as widely available on either Fedora or OpenSUSE). I think I'll probably stick with Arch related distros for now.

Like I said above, the best part about vanilla Arch is being able to setup the file systems to do things like replicate OpenSUSE's BTRFS setup. Once you've done all the nitty-gritty on Arch and get the desktop up and running to the point of clicking shit and doing stuff you probably won't notice a different between Arco, Arch, Endeavour, or Manjaro.

FWIW, Manjaro uses AppArmour and Arch and be configured to use either.

It's because the AUR makes it easy to pass the buck. Unlike Fedora or OpenSUSE or Ubuntu where a compiled binary in a published repo is needed, all a person needs to do is maintain their PKGBUILD on the AUR. All the bullshit and hassle of repo maintenance is passed onto the user.

[skeevy420]

I'm glad you're happy on FreeBSD, but, did you have to abandon Linux itself because you used a broken distro based off another distro? Why didn't you just use Arch proper or any of it's forks?

I fit that description and am on the Linux/BSD fence so I can answer that.

It's because ZFS can be a real pain in the ass on Linux when it's the root file system. If a person just wants a nice desktop to get things done, a ZFS root, gaming isn't a requirement, and they like compiling packages for an optimized system, FreeBSD is one of the best choices around.

As a ZFS user who also plays games, seeing all these BSD gaming articles is really tempting but:

Windows, yes Windows, is what is actually keeping me on Linux more than anything else these days. If you know what you're doing you can use WSL2 to access ZFS volumes from Windows Explorer on Windows 10. I haz an illegalz kernel to do thatz . Because I'm using Arch on WSL2 to do that I'd like to have Arch as my physical second OS...and because I play games and BSD Gamer is an oxymoron.

[berturion]

For all my Arch Linux machines, I always use https://anarchyinstaller.org/. You can customize your installation to fit your needs and it is much close to vanilla Arch Linux than Manjaro or even EndeavorOS.

[Mez']

For me, MHWD is mainly an issue when I'm using custom kernels. If I stick to vanilla Manjaro it isn't an issue. It's really only an issue for extreme power users that should be on Arch.

The kernels in Manjaro are already quite recent (5.10 rc5 being the latest right now, just one rc late). My 9 yo laptop has mature components so I'm good with standard kernels. In Ubuntu, I usually dpkg the latest mainline kernels from https://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
The last time I used custom kernels was between 2017-2018 when amdgpu/DC latest progress needed to be backported.

For me, the added value that Arch Proper brings is you have fine-tuned control over the file system before install. For a good ZFS on Root setup you have to roll your own. A lot of distros throw everything onto a single pool when, IMHO, you need at least 2 or 3 sub-volumes. 1 for package manager read/write only.../bin, /lib, /usr; another for system read-write.../var, /etc, non-ram /tmp; and another for users.../home, /opt. From there you also want specialized pools for swap, torrents, VMs, DBs, and other things that write to the disk in a...I dunno..a "non-standard" way.

While I'm using ZFS in my example, that's true of any file system that offers advanced features. You're able to create Ext4 volumes with case sensitivity, enable compression on various file systems before writing an OS to it, setup BTRFS Snapper configs, and more. While there are more things than that, they can all be changed post-install. File systems you have to get right the first time because you don't necessarily get a do-over or you can corrupt your data if you something wrong.

I stick to ext4 with just /boot, / and /home.
I'm a power user (but not an extreme one), but there's always the balance of spending too much time for little benefits (from my point of view) as I'm not really a geek and I'd rather go outdoors when I can.

You shouldn't need yay installed. Pamac handles AUR packages. That said, I don't trust a GUI program to automagically compile my packages...so yay on. As far as AUR Helpers go, I have to recommend AURUTILS. That's the only one that actually builds AUR packages "the Arch Way"...in a clean chroot...While it isn't as simple to use as the rest, the way it makes packages and adds them to a custom repo for pacman to manage is great; especially if you employ backup/restore strategies, like Snapper or zectl, tied into pacman hooks. Basic update method is pacman (for system/aur depends); aurutils; pacman again (for AURUTILS packages).

Pamac doesn't handle AUR packages just as well. Or doesn't find any updates while yay does.
And sometimes it's just faster to yay -Syyu than to open Pamac and go for updates or some install. I always use both (same with apt and synaptic).

Anyhoo, almost all of my AUR+Manjaro freeze issues were GCC or LLVM related. What happens is Arch updates their repos and in the process GCC or something essential like that will go up a major version, AUR PKGBUILDs that depend on those essentials get updated for the new major versions that Arch now has, and Manjaro AUR users get build issues until the next major Manjaro update where those essentials are updated. If you're not a heavy AUR user or only use one or two things that aren't updated a lot you might never notice. If you're building Mesa or Wine from git master every couple of days, you will notice.

Now, I understand what you mean. I actually have build issues sometimes. I just get around it somehow by installing a more stable version or by the issue being solved at at a later point.

I can see myself coming around to Budgie. The only problem is I compare everything to KDE and everything else is always lacking in customizations. As Budgie matures and gets more features, I dunno, I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

And that's why I see Budgie as a grower. It has a real potential, because when they see demand they are willing to offer to add options in order to meet that demand. They recognize the variety of workflows and use cases. It's not the "do it as we unilaterally designed it" Gnome state of mind. More like "let's sit down and see what we could do about what users want". That's how it should be in my perspective.
It's not as mature as Gnome is (more recent, smaller user base) and the multi-monitor support is not good enough for it becoming my daily driver yet, but the vanilla setup can already be tweaked in several different ways and customized with a lot of options without making it too heavy. If Gnome devs had that state of mind with their means, it would be a killer desktop instead of feeling so restrictive and lacklustre (with 10-20 extensions, it's bearable though). Anyway, this is another discussion, and it stems from the fact that the new release is kind of a big news (as for any DE new release) but didn't get covered here, sadly.